I'm sitting here in Chicago and we are supposed to get our first snow today - 2 records of note were broken this year - longest time period between measurable snows and also latest date for a measurable snow to occur.

Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe.

lol, so it really is "global warming" with a political spin put on it. So subby is right after all.

Hey, look! "Near average" in parts of Russia! And it was cold in small portions of the north Pacific! Take that, climate science! (Larger version here. Full NOAA/NCDC report here. tl;dr version: 2012 was unusually warm, globally. Just like every recent year. )

After all the stupid shiat the last administration started around the world I always suspected they would try to invade Siberia just before winter as a finishing touch and to prove to the world they had no strategy. Or reference to previous bad strategy. That guy's library should be filled with Dick and Jane books.

Although Luntz later tried to distance himself from the Bush administration policy, it was his idea that administration communications reframe "global warming" as "climate change" since "climate change" was thought to sound less severe.

lol, so it really is "global warming" with a political spin put on it. So subby is right after all.

Well, when even Luntz repudiates it, that's kinda like Karl Rove saying that someone pulled a jerk move, or Dick Cheney saying someone was heartless.Yes, there's politics involved. No, it's not on the side that some people claim.

I hate this expression. It's a cop out catch all designed to make climatologists look like seers no matter what happens. Climate gets hotter? Climate change. Climate gets colder? Also climate change. Climate gets wetter? Told you so! Climate gets drier? I'm right about that one too!

If you want credit for building a model with predictive power, you need to actually predict something. Otherwise, STFU.

FlashHarry:everyone point and laugh at submittard and his inability to distinguish between weather and climate!

Pretty much what I was going to say. Things like the jet streams cause fluctuations all the time, between being unusually warm and unusually cold. That's different from long term trends that transcend local variations.

There is a HUGE difference between a windchill of -47 and a temperature of -47.

It was -37 here in a North American city yesterday morning and below -30 for most of the month. On the other side, it is sad what is happening, the big difference here is we can afford all the insulation and high tech clothing and car heaters we need.

I hate this expression. It's a cop out catch all designed to make climatologists look like seers no matter what happens. Climate gets hotter? Climate change. Climate gets colder? Also climate change. Climate gets wetter? Told you so! Climate gets drier? I'm right about that one too!

If you want credit for building a model with predictive power, you need to actually predict something. Otherwise, STFU.

The base prediction is a warming planet, which is demonstrably happening. That doesn't mean that every point on the surface of the planet is going to be hotter than it was before at all points at all times.

It'd be like predicting that the ocean level is rising, overall, and then some guy points at some small harbor that's experiencing low tide at that exact moment, and saying "Nah uh! the ocean levels are DROPPING"

It's the difference between a point sample and a long term averaged trend-line.